Izawwlgood wrote:I think since you recognize it as a personal opinion based on your own moral principles, should respect the fact that in the absence of demonstrable harm, some people may disagree with your notions of 'whole and healthy body', insofar as it applies to things like circumcision. I personally feel that a parent deciding to circumcise a child, correct poly/syndactyly, repair a cleft palate, removing a birthmark, detaching attached earlobes, or getting orthodontics for their kids, without consulting their infant, toddler, or pre-adolescent children on the matter, is perfectly reasonable, again, so long as no serious harm is brought to the child. Because I don't believe that infants, toddlers, or pre-adolescents have rights.
Oh, I do agree with you that some people may disagree, and I'm perfectly willing to accept and discuss this with them, hence why I laid out the difference between my morality and Sourmilk's morality on the issue without judgement as to whose is 'more right' than the other's. My angry response, however, was directed entirely at Sourmilk. I'm willing to discuss this calmly and rationally with you, because you're willing to discuss calmly and rationally in return.
Izawwlgood wrote:Because this is fine, and this is great, but you're getting into, I think, dangerous territory when you start demanding other people accept this view point. We aren't saying 'cut off all the foreskins', we're saying parents should be able to decide for their own kids.
I don't expect people to simply accept this viewpoint. If there's a problem with my morality (i.e. it fails in some objective manner, such as not achieving its stated goals), I fully expect for it to be pointed out and I shall adjust my view accordingly. What I take exception too is Sourmilk's 'I provided an argument for my moral system based entirely on my moral system
therefore yours is wrong until it's proven right'.
The argument is 'parents should be able to decide what's good for their own children, therefore they should be able to have them circumcised' (stop me if I'm misrepresenting your point) vs. 'everyone should have the right to a whole and healthy body, therefore no one should be circumcised unless they consent'.
Obviously, both these points of view have their own inbuilt exceptions, but that's the summary of moral arguments thus presented as I see it.
The thing that ticks me off about Sourmilk is that he's taken the first view as canon, asserting it and claiming from then on that he's 'proven' or 'explained' something when all he's done is 'asserted' or 'explained something else using this as a moral basis'.
Naturally, the standard of proof required to stop circumcision is different for each moral system -- in the first, it needs to be proven to be harmful before you're willing to violate the parents' rights. In the second, you need to prove it's not
harmful before risking violating the child's rights. Obviously, this is a black-and-white approach, and the shades of grey come in for what people accept as sufficient evidence for reasonable doubt / people who hold a superposition of both views.
My previous post wasn't so much an attack against the arguments & points of view of people in this thread as Sourmilk successfully pushing all my buttons.
And while we're on the subject of Sourmilk pushing buttons:
sourmìlk wrote: Circumcision doesn't deprive a person of a whole and healthy body.
You cut a piece off, how the hell is that 'whole'? If I cut a slice out of a cake, it's no longer a whole cake, it's a cake missing a bit.
sourmìlk wrote:I've already explained why these are poor moral viewpoints, and I'm not going to do so again
satisfaction, maybe, not to everyone's. You haven't explained why parental rights are sacrosanct, you've just asserted it and continued from that assumption. Your entire argument is built on this assumption, which the people arguing against you don't share. And just because people stop arguing with you doesn't mean the point is conceded -- ad nauseum is not a victory.